Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin (Account/Technical Issues)  |  Contact Global Moderator
May 19, 2022, 08:01:46 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
 on: Today at 05:32:08 PM 
Started by jswain - Last post by jswain
excellent answer, thank you.

i simply had no idea so this 100% helps put it into perspective.

thanks again , john s.

 on: Today at 05:20:48 PM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by Pete Fardell
This model has been in the wars a lot, but all its crashes have involved walls and floors. So, with a fairly calm evening beckoning, I decided it now deserved a go in my field instead; no walls in sight, and the grass is currently just right.
In this video I've cunningly ordered the three trimming flights to make it look as though I made steady progress and knew exactly what I was doing. It was actually much more of a mish-mash though with some (gentle) doffs in to the left and also some to the right as I tried to get the rudder setting just so. Anyway, all good fun but still some work to do. I might up the power a bit next time by adding another loop of something. That usually seems to help.

 on: Today at 04:49:11 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by g_kandylakis
Hi Mike,

You recall correctly...

There are 3 airplanes that I like so much, I built them again and again...

Avro F, Elias Aircoupe and Sopwith Batboat...

The Aircoupe needs a proper 3 view drawing, which I can only do if I ever manage to visit the Mid Atlantic Air Museum... Talk about going out... far away out...

 on: Today at 04:41:18 PM 
Started by Squirrelnet - Last post by Squirrelnet

We will go on Sunday 22nd. It is a bit of a gamble as the weather forecast looks okish but it will probably be breezy. Fortunately the wind direction is on the longest length of the field.
There will be sheep on the field so please ensure the electric fence is put back up on entry and exit. No dogs or pets.

£5.00 for each person flying, competition or sport, to go to the farmer for the use of the field. Money in the honesty box.
Sport Free flight fliers very welcome
£5.00 competition fee to cover costs.
No charge for the fresh air.
The schedule for the day, hopefully, will be as below, wind permitting etc, but this is subject to change.
10.00 to 12.00 registration and trimming.
12.00 to 13.00 Rubber Precision
13.00 to 13.30 Lunch
14.00 to 16.00 Flying Only. Supplementary award of a framed print, for best Aeromodeller or Model Aircraft designed model.
Prize giving as soon as possible.
Then you can go and "play".

Lodge Farm. Church Lane, Sleaford NG34 8QU.
Whatthreewords app location marathons.piston.steaming
This is also on Google maps as Range & Country Airgun Club.
Where is it? I will use RAF Barkston Heath as a starting point.
From Barkston go north to Ancaster. Drive through Ancaster on the B6403 for approx 1mile and take the turning on right for North and South Rauceby. This turning is easy to miss as it is just after a rise in the road and the sign is unreadable at 50 MPH.
Drive along Church Lane for 1.6 miles. It is narrow and watch out for the pot holes.
Turn into Lodge Farm / Airgun Club on the right. Approach the buildings and follow the farm road to the left and then the right. In front of you is black barn. Take the track on the left between the buildings and trees. Immediately on your right after a few yards is the entrance to the field. There may well be sheep in the field.
There will probably be an electric fence – drop the poles, weight the wires down with the logs lying around and drive over. PUT THE ELECTRIC FENCE BACK UP!

A few notes as we do not want the site jeopardised.
This is a free flight site limited to small I/C engines up to 1.5cc.
Be noise aware. No engines run before 10.00.
£5.00 for the day. Money to go in the honesty box on the edge of the field adjacent to the water trough when you enter the field.
All the usual courtesies please. Drive slowly on the farm.
The field is used for grazing sheep so please ensure you take everything with you when you leave. Leave the site as you found it. No F.O.D.
Drive around the edge of the field anticlockwise and be careful of divots and deep tractor tracks etc hidden in the grass. Particularly at the tractor entrance in the SW corner and the ditch from the north side as marked in yellow
Beware of the electrified fence around the site.
There are no toilet facilities.
There is a pub in Ancaster and Byards Café and Hotel at the junction of the B6403 with the A17 north of Lodge Farm. There is also Beeches campsite if you are so inclined.

 on: Today at 04:22:16 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by ZK-AUD
I recall that George has a particular interest in the Elias Aircoupe and that he played a central part in assisting me with this build (built because I have little interest in Lacey’s or other barn door boxes)


 on: Today at 03:58:21 PM 
Started by jswain - Last post by USch
The F1Q rule says that you have 3 Joule (J) for every 1g of model at disposition.

1 J = 1 Newton (N) * 1 meter (m)
1 J = 1 Watt (W) * 1 second (sec)

So your model of 150g has 450 J to burn during the climb.
Your motor with a 7" x 4" propeller might (dont know exactly!) consume about 12 Ampere (A) at a tension of about 7,4 Volt (V). So you calculate A * V = W
12A * 7,4V = 88,8W.
At last, you have just to divide the J by the W to get seconds' climb!
450J / 88,8W = 5 sec.

Just as a guess, at a climb speed of 20m/sec you will get 100m height. That's 2/3 of the climb height of the best F1Q models (150-170m). And the sink speed is probably double that of the same well build F1Q.

Not much hope to convert a F1S in a successful F1Q  Angry


 on: Today at 03:44:15 PM 
Started by g_kandylakis - Last post by g_kandylakis
So, as I already posted on the "Show your newest creation" topic, I have just completed the main woodwork for two No-Cals, the first after over thirty years...

Beech Staggerwing after A.A. Lindberg's plan in Model Builder and Elias Aircoupe after own drawings.

Weight so far is 1,85 for the Staggerwing, 1,4 for the Aircoupe but will rise to 1,8-2,0 with the landing gear and the struts.

So, a few questions:

Motor stick suggestions, solid or hollow? Rolled tube? What dimensions?

Positioned on left side or right side?

Propeller, plastic or wooden? indoor flyers, wher a 6 gram min weight limit exists...



 on: Today at 03:34:29 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by g_kandylakis

Very well done, Gary and Dan, a Staggerwing and an Elias Aircoupe...

The Staggerwing is built after the A.A. Lindberg plan in October '85 Model Builder, the Aircoupe after own plans.

I built the Staggerwing back then (16...) and we used to toss it around in our club's workshop as a glider. It glided well until one day we decided to see what happens if we attach a tiny dinamite stick to a strut and light it before launch... Too bad there were no video capabilities back then Grin

And of course, they are NoCals... a HWYM and a DWYB, just what Bill Dennis likes seing.

I decided to give certain gentlemen a run for their money in a class where duration is important (Richard C, Graham B), So I chose NoCal, because, lets face it, no chance in Peanut and Pistachio...

I should have them ready by November, Friday the 11th for triming.

Here is what I should have posted, to begin with...


PS DWYB is again just another silly thing, i know...

 on: Today at 03:18:40 PM 
Started by jswain - Last post by jswain
Hello from So. California.

My Question is this to anyone who has or knows of using a Sdius F1Q limiter :

--  what length of  **motor run time** could be expected from a e36/f1s type model BUT using f1q limiter and F1Q rules?

for this estimate a  typical e36/f1s model would be RTF weight 150g, 7x4 prop,  a 2s lipo and a motor like the C-2203-28-e36 2800kv motor.

I am not looking for an exact down to the second answer but just a generic run time.

thanks in advance for any info on this, i could spend about a 100$ and get one but asking first is a quicker and cheaper option.

best wishes, john s.

 on: Today at 03:06:24 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by Gary Dickens
That's what I meant Dan! Alco Sport....

 on: Today at 03:02:00 PM 
Started by RalphS - Last post by RalphS
Thanks Bill.


 on: Today at 02:48:53 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by danmellor
Elias Aircoupe for the second pic?



 on: Today at 02:14:49 PM 
Started by RalphS - Last post by billdennis747
Ralph, assuming my spinner is standard:
Diameter 19mm
Length     18mm
diameter of central threaded bit  7mm

There is no protusion. Might be easiest just to make it solid?

 on: Today at 01:45:31 PM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by Nigel M
One more post from me, then I'm off for a lie down. Sorry it's long, happy to be fact-checked, assumptions dismissed, sums altered or whatever else.

I for one think the whole exercise was worthwhile - thanks, Peter - and I look forward to the outcome of STC's deliberations. I'd better build something now I've had so much to say. All I'll say is it will definitely have a wingspan >13".

ROG value
One last contribution from me exploring the impact of the ROG bonus value on breadth of model choice alongside changing the flying score multiplier, within the combining scores system.
To recap; ROG bonus = 10s which is increased by the multiplier value 3 to equal 30 marks. This might be viewed as too rewarding compared to max possible static score which is around 45-60 marks, depending on the aircraft chosen, and hence causes too much bias in model choice, assuming an entrant wishes to at least enter with the possiility of winning, all else being equal. Can the ROG value or multiplier be altered to make model choice fairer, i.e. so a range of model types has an equal chance of winning?

What level of total ROG marks, consistently earned, would be seen as balanced compared to the static scoring system?

How about 15 (i.e. halve the 10 per ROG to 5)? Still too high?
How about 6 (i.e. marks per ROG = 2)? Still too high?

Looked at a different way, to maintain equal encouragement of different model types, it’s easy to compare the impact of the ROG bonus, and the flight time multiplier, upon different strategies. Here’s one strategy comparison as an example:

Compared to building a high wing monoplane, or a biplane, which can’t quite fit a good duration prop, the alternative strategy of building a low winger without undercarriage and foregoing ROG would score: +3 (low winger), -3 (no u/c), -1 (assuming extra dihedral), = -1 before foregoing the ROG bonus. But there’s nothing to prevent an accurate undercarriage being flown deployed though, so score = +2 before accounting for ROG. Overall effect = 2 – total ROG score.

However, an excellent duration-style prop could be used with hand-launch so we could assume flight time max is achieved which, when compared to Mike H’s Bucker, is worth +7+6+5 marks compared to his best flight times of 43, 44 and 45s. That’s either +15 to the low winger (or +18 if we change to combining top 3 flights).

Simplifying the above, low winger no u/c vs biplane using ROG: low winger scores +1 (low wing vs biplane), 0 (u/c modelled deployed), -1 (increased dihedral), +18 (flight times), -ROG bonus. To be equivalent, total ROG should score 18 (i.e. 6 per flight).

Even hand-launching the Bucker but using a better prop, Mike could have scored +15 or +18 (flight time maxes) – total ROG bonus. To be equivalent, ROG bonus would need to be 5 or 6 per flight.

Let’s consider changing the flight score multiplier to another arbitrary number, 2, and/or use top 2 flight scores.

Using the same numbers, comparing a low winger with extended u/c and slightly exaggerated dihedral that achieves max flight times, to Mike’s Bucker from ROG. Low winger flight score = +5+6 (or 2x +5). To be equivalent, divide 11 (or 10) by flight multiplier 2, ROG bonus must be 5.5 (or 5) per flight.

Let’s continue by removing the multiplier completely so flight time and static score are given equal weighting: low winger flight score = +5, to be equivalent, ROG bonus must be 5 per flight.

The downside from removing the multiplier and using single best flight time is it removes the reward for consistency. To regain the encouragement and reward of consistency, one could average the top 3 flight times (or top 2), and still sum flight and static scores without multipliers.

I think my conclusion is, within the combined flight seconds plus static marks system, there is a place for a ROG bonus to encourage diversity of strategies, to make it a more interesting competition. However, the bonus value needs to be changed and the value considered alongside other potential changes, particularly the flight time multiplier.


 on: Today at 01:28:30 PM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by Nigel M
A person of relevance told me they didn’t think plastic films represented the finish of aircraft well and I assumed the purpose of the microfilm/Mylar rule was a badly worded attempt to remove their use, i.e. the use of all plastic films.
They need to see Ralph Sparrow's silver mylar models.
Such as this one in this pic from Mike’s site http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3ai.htm
Thanks. I happen to own that yellow wingtip now  Grin still far better than anything I can build. Kudos for anyone who can ID it (Dan Mellor is excluded from the comp  Cheesy)

 on: Today at 01:09:41 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by Pete Fardell
I agree with Gary about the Staggerwing.
Thanks for the offer of more Berg and Storm Monoplane pics too. I may take you up on that someday!

 on: Today at 01:05:59 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by Gary Dickens
Beech Staggerwing and an Alco Sport?


 on: Today at 12:57:34 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by g_kandylakis
Yes, I am mean...

Yes, silly also... and with a weird sense of humor (or is it only me who thinks this as humor?...)

 on: Today at 12:56:06 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by g_kandylakis
No, it goes together with the last picture.

I see now that I did not provide enough information for a chance at guessing. My fault...

Hope the one attached is more complete

 on: Today at 12:21:02 PM 
Started by BG - Last post by BG
To be honest with the Dimer C-maid the easiest way is probably to make the wing pop-up but this will require some reengineering of the wing mount and fuselage top ... BUT, it keeps the extra weight around the CG... ..A MORE STANDARD SOLUTION - you have to make separate stab halves with a joiner tube and then have the stab halves rotate on that joiner tube to tip up. ...BUT THIS ADS WEIGHT TO THE TAIL WHICH IS SUBOPTIMAL. If it were me I'd probably just accept that I might lose her and have to build another.


 on: Today at 12:01:27 PM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by Pete Fardell
Is the middle one a Sopwith Tabloid’s tailplane?

 on: Today at 11:03:21 AM 
Started by crashcaley - Last post by g_kandylakis

Wel, what are you waiting for then? I can provide some more pictures if you like...

And the current creations I am working on...

Any ideas as to what they are?


 on: Today at 10:31:07 AM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by SP250

It definately wasn't you who caused the mylar ban.
STC minutes are published on the BMFA SharePoint website and there is a link on the Scale BMFA Website under documents tab.
Different scores on different years is normal from different judges.  Everyone else's models will also get different scores. 
As long as they are all judged by the same judges on the day, then all the models will be coming out around the same place relative to each other.
My peanut Lacey M10 with dull side of the mylar out looked just right for the original colour scheme before the white and red one. 
Now I have stripped it all off to tissue cover and the silver tissue is horrendous to use.

John M

 on: Today at 10:12:13 AM 
Started by Pete Fardell - Last post by RalphS
Just came across this.  Is the mylar ban just for Peanut class or all indoor scale classes?  The only times that I flew were 2016 and 2017 and think that my models were the only mylar covered ones so "was it me" who caused this minor rumpus and why?

Do the Scale tech committee publish minutes of their meetings? 

I found that I got different static scores between the years for the same model. That put me off. 

As well as silver mylar I have used clear mylar with acrylic paint on my Bristol Scout Peanut to get the see-through effect.  The Avro Avis did use silver mylar.  It is still largely unflown due to the Covid interruption.  Both builds here in the indoor scale/ Peanut sections.


 on: Today at 09:51:27 AM 
Started by RalphS - Last post by RalphS
Looking for basic dimensions.  I have an old BEE that has lost it's spinner.  I see that they are available on ebay but I have a small lathe and ample bits of aluminium rod and would like to make one.  Having sold/given away my stocks of balsa, piano wire, brass and alum tubing and tissue I have time to machine the lost component.  The original would have been made to Imperial dimensions but I can cope with Imperial or metric.  I don't need super accuracy. 

The dimensions needed are diameter of spinner, diameter of shaft protrusion, length of protrusion behind the spinner, overall length.

Thanks in advance.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!